Why is it that different groups of Christians, each committed to faithful
biblical exegesis, so often disagree? Is this caused by an "anything can be
argued from the Bible" situation in fact? When many of the peripheral reasons
for these differences have been understood and put aside-such reasons as
historical, political, economic and ethnic-a prominent reason remains. It is
the thesis of this paper that differences between equally committed and equally
biblically knowledgeable Christians arise from the choice of a hermeneutical
perspective: whether that of deduction of biblical truth from specific passages,
or induction of biblical truth from the Bible and experience as a whole. Once
one of these two perspectives has been chosen to the practical exclusion of the
other, the conclusions of exegesis are inevitable and completely predictable.
Examples are given from the areas of biblical inerrancy, creation and evolution,
slavery, and the role of women. Only a position in which both deductive and
inductive hermeneutics are integrated is adequate for reliable biblical understanding.

Introduction
One of the doctrines of the Christian faith is that
Christians are led into a knowledge of truth by the
guidance of the Holy Spirit as they study and apply the
revelation of the Bible. Differences between conservative Christians who take the Bible as normative and
more liberal Christians who regard the Bible as an
inspiring historical record only are understandable
because of the fundamental difference in attitude
toward the Bible. But the cause of differences between
two groups of conservative and evangelical Christians,
both openly dedicated to sound biblical exegesis and acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, is more
difficult to understand. Such differences are commonly
an embarrassment to evangelism and apologetics for
they appear to undermine the fundamental evangelical
faith in the final authority and sufficiency of Scripture
as a guide to faith and life. They appear to lend support
to the common complaint that the Bible is such a
complex book that it is possible to derive any doctrine
one wants from it, and that therefore in the final
analysis biblical doctrines are really subjective rather
than the objective revelation of God.

There are, of course, a variety of reasons why even
evangelical Christians committed to sound biblical
interpretation often disagree. The interpreters are after
all human and are subject to the common failings of
human nature. They are not only fallible, sinful creatures, but they are also participants in an historical
situation, a specific culture, an ethnic heritage, a political and economic milieu, that shapes their understanding of Scripture almost without their recognition of that
fact. There is another reason for such disagreement
between biblically committed Christians, however, and
it is so prevalent and so f orcef ul in its ef f ect, that it is
the one that we discuss in this paper. It is the a priori
choice of one of two hermeneutical perspectives to the
exclusion of the other: a deductive perspective as
contrasted with an inductive perspective. The conservative Christian traditionalist leans heavily on the
deductive perspective and this choice already shapes
the conclusions to be reached even before examination
of the Bible begins. Another valid approach exists,
however, that of an inductive interpretation; in the
hands of evangelical, biblically committed Christians,
it also leads to a particular conclusion frequently different from that traditionally derived by deduction.

We illustrate the practical consequences of these
choices of hermeneutical perspective by considering
the specific topics of biblical inerrancy, creation versus
evolution, slavery, and the role of women. We argue
that only an integration of deductive and inductive
approaches is adequate to obtain an authentic understanding of the biblical revelation.

Deduction versus Induction

The deductive approach to understanding starts with
the acceptance of a basic principle and then seeks to
deduce by logical analysis what the consequences of
that principle are in other aspects of life. If a is always
twice b, and if in a particular case we know that b is
three times c, then we may deduce that a is six times c.
We started from the general principle relating a and b
which is always true, and then in a specific case we
applied the laws of logic to deduce the implications of
the general principle in the specific case.

The inductive approach looks at a variety of specific
evidences and attempts to draw from those evidences
the general principle. We might, for example, consider
the following sets of data relating a and b to c:

a
c
b
c

6
1
3
1
12
2
6
2
18
3
9
3

From the regular pattern of these observances, we
might inductively conclude that because of the relationshp that both a and b have to c, it appears that a is
always twice b.

Such an example, of course, is the simplest of all
possible cases. When we step outside of the area of
elementary mathematics into principles and conclusions that are far more complex and intrinsically
ambiguous, the stages of analysis are less well defined.

It is admittedly simplistic, but nevertheless perhaps
useful, to realize that the development of modern
science from pre-Galilean science was in large measure
a shift from the deductive approach to what should be
called an inductive/deductive approach. Aristotelian
science functioned largely in the deductive mode.
Because rest was the natural state of a body (general
principle) one could deduce that a moving body would
eventually come to rest. Because a circle was a perfect
geometrical shape (general principle) one could deduce
that the shape of planetary orbits is circular. One major
change introduced by Galileo and others was to shift
from attempting to deduce truth about the universe
from general philosophical principles to identifying
truth by the more inductive process of the accumulation of data and observation. Instead of asserting that

Richard H. Bube received the Ph.D. degree in Physics from Princeton University.
From
1948-1962
he was on the technical staff of the RCA Laboratories in
Princeton, New Jersey, and since
1962
he has been on the faculty of Stanford
University as Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering. From
1975
to
1986
he served as Chairman of the Department of Materials Science and
Engineering. Dr. Bube is the author of books both on photoelectronic materials
and devices, and on the interaction between science and Christian faith. From
1969
to
1983
he served as Editor of the journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation. He has been a speaker on science and Christianity on many college
and university campuses.

we know what the universe must be like a priori on the
basis of general philosophical (or theological) principles, the modern scientist attempts to identify the
properties of the universe by exploring the universe
itself, by building up a supply of observations and data
that lead to the formulation of an apparently valid
general principle. Then the integration of induction
and deduction manifests itself, because this "general
principle," formulated from the combination of inductive data and human creativity, is then tested experimentally to see whether its predictions will continue to
conform to tests of the real world in other situations
beyond those used to establish it inductively in the first
place. Established and accepted principles, originally
developed by a largely inductive process, thus become
the basis for deductive applications to probe still further.

Examples of both of these approaches can also be
seen in Christian apologetics concerning the divine
inspiration of the Bible. For example, if we start from
the general principle that we can reliably understand
the Bible concerning what it teaches, we deduce from
passages in the Bible that speak of its being divinely
inspired the prima facie evidence for biblical inspiration. If, on the other band, we start from the effect of
the Bible on people's lives, on its beauty and lofty
expression of language, on its amazing consistency
between diverse authors and times, and on its unique
role in the history of much of the human race, we
induce from these data that the Bible is a divinely
inspired book that can be trusted in what it teaches.

Difficulties arise when we desire to go further and
decide what it is that inspiration ensures and what is not
essential to the consequences of inspiration. Then it is
necessary to decide whether the specific Bible passages
that teach about inspiration are sufficiently clear, specific, detailed, complete and relevant so that we can
deduce from them the full consequences of inspiration,
or whether we must look at the actual substance,
pattern, model, and example of biblical authors themselves to enable us to decide what inspiration means.
Are the teachings clear and evident, such that the
proper course is the deductive one of interpreting all
biblical phenomena in terms of the teachings, or is a
sure insight into the meaning of the teachings to be
gained only by an evaluation of the phenomena in an
inductive approach?

In view of the historical background and developments of recent centuries, it is not surprising that
Christian scientists today generally regard a purely
deductive approach as inadequate in both science and
biblical interpretation. This is one reason that evangelical Christian scientists today frequently find themselves in disagreement with the conservative Christian
traditionalist who frequently operates in the same mode as did Aristotelian science. By considering four
well known and typical examples, we hope to demonstrate the inadequacy of adopting either a deductive or
an inductive approach exclusively, and the importance
of allowing insights from both approaches to be assimilated and integrated.

Each of the four following illustrations of the critical
nature of a deductive versus inductive approach has
been treated at great length in many places previously.
Here we do not try to present exhaustive cases, but
simply to point out the way in which the choice of
deduction or induction dominates the process of biblical exegesis.

Biblical Inerrancy

The issue of biblical inerrancy deals with the relevancy, the reliability and the truthfulness of
Scripture.1-6 "Deduction starts with a handful of passages that
appear to teach directly about the nature of Scripture
and deduces from these passages the answer to all
questions in this area and the context in which all other

In view of the historical background and developments of recent centuries, it is not surprising that Christian
scientists today generally regard a purely deductive approach as inadequate in both science and
biblical interpretation.

biblical and non-biblical evidence must be evaluated.
Induction recognizes the existence of these teaching
passages but in order to understand their full extent and
domain insists that it is necessary to look at the pbenomena of Scripture themselves so that the teaching passages may be rightly understood. Deduction subjects
the interpretation of the significance of all other phenomena, whether biblical or extra-biblical, to the supposedly clear understanding of those specific texts that
deal with the inspiration and character of Scripture.
Induction subjects the understanding of these specific
texts to an appreciation of the actual phenomena of
Scripture with which it is assumed that they must be
consistent. Deduction regards phenomena of Scripture
that do not appear to agree with the understanding of
the teaching of specific texts as problems; induction
regards understandings of specific texts that are inconsistent with the phenomena of Scripture as eisegesis
rather than exegesis.

The question of the nature of the biblical revelation
itself is a classical example of this methodological
dichotomy between deduction and induction. Advocates of a deductive approach center on such passages
as 11 Timothy
3:16
and 11 Peter
1: 16-2 1.
The deductive
argument is straightforward. Considering 11 Timothy
3:16,
for example,

(a) The Scriptures teach that Scripture is God-breathed.
(b) Since God is omniscient, omnipotent and all-truthful, it
follows that Scripture itself must partake of these same
qualities.

Often in our own scientific age, these arguments are
then extended as follows:

(c) A standard of truthfulness is scientific accuracy.
(d) Scripture must therefore be scientifically accurate in whatever it proclaims.

The advocates of deduction therefore assume that they
know the full and complete implication of these and
other specific texts dealing with the character of Scripture.

Advocates of induction follow a somewhat different
approach. Not being sure of all that is included in the
"inspiration of Scripture," they argue that the way to
find out is to look at the phenomena of Scripture
themselves. They call attention to other biblical teaching on the purpose of
revelation7 and suggest that the
effects of inspiration should be consistent with the
purposes for which the revelation was given and probably not with others. They recognize the obvious fact
that every word in the Bible does not express in itself a
basic truth of God,8 and they trace the progressive
revelation concerning the identity and coming of the Messiah9 as an example of the mode of revelation. They
note that the demand for total scientific accuracy
would force an interpreter to believe that the Bible was
not factually accurate,10 and that a number of well
known examples exist of apparent discrepancies.11
They observe that the New Testament use of Old
Testament "prophecy" is not always obvious from the
Old Testament text itself,
12
that the use of numbers in
the Bible has a clearly symbolic aspect as well as a
literal aspect," and that demand for historical accuracy
between differing accounts of the same events would
again force an interpreter to conclude that the Bible is lacking.14

Simple deduction leads to the conclusion that the
Bible is a perfect, totally accurate, scientifically exact
text and that simple explanations for all of the above "
problems" are in principle possible without violation
of this conclusion. Simple induction leads to the conclusion that the Bible is shot through with variations and
cultural influences that prevent it from being considered the inspired Word of God. It is only by combining
deduction with induction that we can arrive at the
biblically faithful witness to its own character. Then
inputs from induction keep us from reading our concepts of logic and scientific accuracy into the biblical
revelation, and inputs from deduction keep us from
failing to see the divine Word of God presented to us in
a way that faithfully preserves and communicates
God's purposes in Jesus Christ.

Creation and Evolution

A bibliography on the subject of creation and evolution would run to hundreds, if not thousands of
volumes. 2,3,15-18Students of the debate agree more and
more unanimously that the issue is decided by presuppositions and not by factual evidence. There is a strong
ingredient of deduction versus induction present in
these presuppositions.

Advocates of a deductive approach argue that the
opening chapters of Genesis provide us with a clear,
scientifically accurate account of the events involved in
the origin of the universe, the earth, living creatures,
and human beings. The only mechanism active in all of
these origins is the fiat act of God, forever impossible to
describe in terms of scientifically understandable process, and active in history for all of these origins for not
more than about 10,000 years. Those making these
deductions assume that they know the full implications,
purpose, and context of the Genesis text, and to them it
is clear that this text provides the same kind of news as
that given by a newspaper reporter observing the
events, and the same kind of information as would be
given by a scientific attempt to describe these events.

Inductionists, who also revere the Bible as the revelation of God, are Dot convinced that the Genesis text can
be given this simple interpretation if one is to be
faithful to all of the revelation that God has given to
us,
19,20
and even if one is concerned to be faithful only to
the biblical record itself.17 They reject the thesis that
the creation versus evolution debate is a critical frontier
in the defense of the faith. It is not a conflict between
the Bible and science, for the true set in which the
conflict must express itself, if there is one, is between
theology (a human interpretation of the Bible) and
science (a human interpretation of the natural world).
It is not a conflict between Supernaturalism and Naturalism because God's action in nature must not of
necessity have only a supernatural description. It is not
a conflict between Design and Chance because this
confuses scientific "chance" with philosophical "meaninglessness" and fails to see that "chance" can be the
method of design. Finally it is not a conflict between
atheism and theism because a theist can readily accept
evolution as a working hypothesis for our description of
God's activity in history.

The creation versus evolution debate, on the other hand, can be seen indeed as an example of the conflict
between deduction and induction, since deductionists
claim that the Bible alone can be the source of all
knowledge in this area. It is a conflict between human
interpretation of God's Word and God's Work, by those
who would discount the latter in arriving at the former.

Inductionists separate the profound biblical doctrines based on Creation from the possible mechanisms
by which creation was expressed. They note the symbolical elements in the Genesis text associated with
events on different days being apparently not chronological but polemical, with references to a tree of life
and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as well as
to a speaking serpent and to the use of the number
11
seven. " They recognize the basic biblical teaching that
sets forth God as our Creator and Redeemer.21 They
strive to appreciate the practical purposes behind the
existence of the two creation accounts in Genesis I and
2. And they are forced to take seriously all of the
extra-biblical data and evidence concerning the age
and natural history of the earth, which they regard as
God's revelation through the things He has made.

Simple deduction leads to the conclusion that Genesis
gives us a complete and scientifically relevant description of the mechanisms for various origins, and that all
internal or external evidence to the contrary must be
dismissed as mistaken and fallacious. Simple induction
leads us to believe that the universe and the human
beings in it came into being by a long series of
meaningless events over a long period of time, and that
we have no long-time purpose, meaning or relevance.
Once again, it is only by combining deduction with
induction that we can understand the truth of God's
creative activity and its significance for our lives, while
at the same time retaining an openness and integrity in
matters suitable for scientific investigation. It is by
combining deduction and induction that we know that
as Christians we must always say, "Yes," to Creation
quite independently of the validity of evolution, while
we can suggest also a tentative "Yes" to evolution and
an openness to future developments.

Slavery

Christians today may find it hard to realize that little
more than a hundred years ago in the United States the
biblical teaching on slavery was a critical issue for
Christians. Today one would have to search far and
wide to find a single Christian willing to make a public
defense of slavery on the basis of the Bible. What is the
cause of this rapid change in attitude?

The biblical treatment of slavery has similarities to
its treatment of the two illustrations we have just
considered, but there are also significant and marked
differences. In the case of biblical inerrancy and of
creation versus evolution, an argument could be
advanced that deduction focussed on a few specific
texts and that induction focussed on many general
phenomena within and outside Scripture. Slavery does
not follow this pattern exactly. Here one can argue that
a major portion of the direct, and particularly the
indirect, teaching of Scripture assumes slavery as a
vital and continuing institution. It is only in a few
general and "visionary" passages that expficit expression is given to what Christians have now come to see as
a fundamental expression of Christian living and concerns, one that is at serious odds with the institution of
slavery. Yet it is these few prophetically interpreted
passages examined inductively, supported by the
unspoken but always present perspective of Scripture,
that Christians today would champion without reservation in spite of the much larger collection of passages
that form the basis for deductive interpretation with
respect to slavery.

Throughout the entire Bible the institution of slavery
is accepted as self-evident, and major models of Christian living are based on it by the biblical authors. In
particular the Bible teaches that the slave/master relationship is a type of the Christian/God relationship-in
much the same way that the husband/wife relationship
is presented as a type of the Christ/Church relationship. One can construct an excellent case that to reject
the institution of slavery is to reject a basic biblical
model. And yet the Bible reaches beyond the years of
culture and commonly accepted usage and may be seen
as
beginning
to point to something else: an inevitable
consequence of the continuing witness of the Holy
Spirit to His people.

From the time of Noah in Genesis 9:25-27, slavery is
described in the Bible. This particular passage was used
very recently to defend the slavery of black people in
the United States. All together there are about one
hundred references to slaves in the Old Testament.

By their remarks, the authors of several New Testament books make it clear that they view their relationship to God as that of slave to Master: they were slaves
of sin; they were bought by the precious blood of
Christ; now they are slaves of God.22 Jesus used the
institution of slavery as the background for many of His teachings,23 and Paul followed His
example.24 In I Peter
2:16, Peter expressly exhorts Christians to live as slaves
of God. In a key teaching on the Incarnation in
Philippians 2:7, Paul speaks of Jesus taking the form of
a slave. In at least three places Paul teaches explicitly
about the roles of slaves, exhorting submission of slave
to master.25

To cite particular biblical passages that point the way
to the present attitude toward slavery is not an easy
task. Perhaps three New Testament passages might be
cited in this connection. In both I Corinthians 7:20-22
and Galatians 3:28 Paul affirms that in Christ the
relationship of slave to free person is done away as a
statement of human reality. He clearly does not teach
that slavery should be abolished, but he does emphasize
that in Christ the slave is free and the free person is a
slave of God, so that all intrinsic distinctions related to
the social status of each is irrelevant in Christ. And in
the tantalizing passage of Philemon 16, Paul seems to
be urging Philemon to give expression to the unity
between his slave Onesimus and himself by accepting
him as an equal brother. But certainly these few
passages cannot be treated as a deductive basis for a
Christian stand against slavery. Rather it is the overwhelming inductive evidence from the total biblical
teaching on the value of the human being, every
human being, made in the image of God that has led to
the end of slavery. It is in a Christian context the
outworking of the basic unity of all believers in Jesus
Christ that in the course of time has led to the abolition
of slavery and to the present unthinkability of any
Christian's "owning" another person made in the
image of God and part of the body of Christ.

Any simple deductive approach to the subject of
slavery must lead to the conclusion that slavery is a
divinely approved institution that models many basic
human/God relationships. Although the Bible does not
explicitly teach that slavery is approved by God, its
total use of slavery as a viable and illustrative institution
can lead deductively to few other conclusions than that
slavery is acceptable for the child of God, both as slave
and as master. It is only when one builds on the total
11
analogy of Scripture" with historical guidance from
the Holy Spirit (which includes all those political,
economic and social factors that led to the abolition of
slavery), that one is enabled to inductively respond to
the few prophetic passages that speak of a reality that
transcends contemporary social practice and culture.

Women's Roles
When we come to the question of women's roles,
particularly those involving the allowable roles for
women in the offices of the church and the roles
suitable for women in society, we come to a topic that
combines all of the features of the previous three
questions together with a dynamic social movement.
Here there are key passages that can be interpreted
deductively to set the boundaries of women's activities,
as in the case of biblical inerrancy and creation versus
evolution. Here there is the assumption of a cultural
and social practice in the biblical teaching with use of
these practices as illustrations and examples, as in the case of slavery. Here there is finally an underlying
biblical perspective that comes to light in a few prophetic and "visionary
11
passages, as in the case of slavery.
The interaction of deductive and inductive approaches
is perhaps more complex than in any of the other three
examples we have considered."26-38

It is by combining deduction and induction that we know that as Christians we must always say, "Yes,"
to Creation quite independently of the validity
Of evolution, while we can suggest also a tentative "Yes" to evolution and an openness to future
developments.

If we turn to the actual descriptions and activities of
women in the Bible, we see first that in the Old
Testament by law women had a limited position that
often bordered on their being treated only as possessions.39 Only men bore the sign of the covenant; only
men could divorce their spouses; only men could refuse
a leviratic marriage; only a man could make an
unbreakable vow. In the tenth commandment wives
are linked with house and household slaves or servants.
The biological functioning of women was associated
with ceremonial uncleanness, and sexual access to
women captives in war was considered a right (although it is certain that Jesus dealt with this issue
differently according to Matthew 5:28). Clearly the
revelation of the Old Testament comes to us out of the
context of a patriarchal society, just as the treatment of
slavery comes to us out of the context of a slave-owning
society. The question is whether this patriarchal character is normative or incidental. A deductive approach
inevitably favors the former. An inductive approach
can be used to support this conclusion, as for example
when the above Old Testament illustrations are considered normative, but an inductive approach also provides considerable evidence for a different approach to
the question.

The deductive approach claims some nine New
Testament passages from the practical teaching of Paul
as the foundation for the development of biblical
propositions about women's roles.40 It can even claim
that Paul himself provides the model for the deductive
approach in I Timothy 2:12-14:

(a) Adam was formed first, then Eve.

(b) Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived.
(c) Therefore women who carry on the line of Eve are allowed
neither to have authority over men nor to teach men, but
are to remain silent and submissive.

A similar example is provided by I Corinthians 11:8,9.
In keeping with a deductive approach, it is emphasized
that if we wish to know what the Bible teaches about
women's roles, we must look primarily at those passages
that teach on this subject. When this is done, it is
claimed that the passages in I Corinthians and I Timothy clearly forbid the ordination of women. Women
are expressly forbidden to hold any teaching/ruling
office in the church, for timeless reasons grounded in
creation, the Fall, and God's purpose for men and
women. Similarly Ephesians 5:22-33 is seen to be the
foundation for a deductive conclusion emphasizing an
authority hierarchy in the family.

Clearly the revelation of the Old
Testament comes to us out of the context of a patriarchal society, just as the treatment of slavery comes to
us out of the context of a slave-owning society. The question is whether this patriarchal character is
normative or incidental.

The position developed by deduction can be summarized as follows. The woman is subject to the man
because the man, as created first, is directly in the
image and glory of God, whereas the woman, created
after the man and for him, is the glory of the man.
Because of her lesser endowment (presumably) she was
deceived by the Tempter whereas the man was not.
Therefore she should never aspire to teach the man, but
always learn from him in subjection and quiet humility.
This means that the woman is subordinate to the man in
the family and in the church. This does not imply that
the woman is inferior to the man, but that in following
this subordination she fulfills the order of creation as
intended by God. The woman is complementary in
leadership, but subordinate in government.

AD
inductive argument can also be offered in support of this position, although it is definitely secondary
to the deductive argument. The whole biblical record,
it is argued, testifies that the male predominates in
Scripture: Old Testament patriarchal society, Jesus Himself, the twelve disciples, the office holders in the
early church. In keeping with this inductive evidence,
the symbolism of God's relationship to His people
requires a male office holder in the church and a male
authority in the home. The male/female hierarchy is
only one step in the whole "chain of authority" that
extends from God to men to women to children.

Inductionists ask the fundamental question: Are the practical teachings of Paul sufficiently understood in
terms of their local context that they can be unquestionably advanced as the normative guidelines for all
times? Is the patriarchal pattern of the Bible intended
to be normative, or is it a cultural framework from
which the Holy Spirit may bring something more
complete as in the case of our understanding of slavery?

In order to answer these questions, inductionists look
at the actual roles described for women in the New
Testament. Here there is a great wealth of material not
usually considered by deductionists, some of it admittedly difficult to evaluate." An examination of the
Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles shows that women
played a consistent and prominent role in the life of the
early church from its very beginning. Sometimes it is
not easy to identify the exact nature of this role, since
offices and roles were not clearly defined. it may also
be noted that Jesus broke traditions concerning women
in several instances in order to more clearly define the
intent rather than the practice of the Old Testament
law. He revealed His most profound mission to the
outcast Samaritan woman at the well, whom His disciples would not even have spoken to. He did not sanction
the killing of the woman taken in adultery. He welcomed Mary into the most intimate relationship and
chided Martha for not understanding this. He moved to
oppose frivolous divorce practices that threatened
women's welfare. He accepted the attentions and love
of the woman who was a former prostitute. He taught
several times using parables or expressions in which
men and women were parallel actors, and even used
women in parables to represent God. He taught that in
the resurrection any distinctions that might presently
exist in the marriage relationship would be done away
with since marriage itself would be done away with.

Furthermore inductionists note that it was to a
woman that Jesus taught most clearly about the resurrection. It was to a woman that Jesus first appeared
after His own resurrection. It was a woman who was the
first convert in Macedonia. It was a woman, who, with
her husband, taught Apollos a more complete basis for
his preaching. It was a woman to whom Paul sends his
first greetings at the end of the letter to the Romans, a
closing that indicates, by the way, that at least one-third
of "the leaders" in the church at Rome were women.

In dealing with the Genesis record, inductionists note
that Genesis
1:26,27
recounts how God made man,
male and female, in His image; man and woman
consitute a fellowship of equals as in the Trinity. In
Genesis
1:28
they are given joint responsibilities. The
subordination of woman to man comes only after the
Fall, as one of the "curses." But in Christ there is a new
creation, superseding the Fall as described in Galatians
3:28.
Through faith, by grace, the equality of male and
female in human relationships is restored (Note I
Corinthians
11:11,12.).
Maleness and femaleness are
complementary aspects of the image of God. In Christ
women, like men, are called to responsibly exercise all
of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in mutual submission, one
to another in the church and in the family. The whole
recorded history of women in the Gospels, Acts and the
Epistles suggests that in actual fact men and women
were treated equally with the same opportunities to use
their spiritual gifts. No roles are forbidden to the
woman a priori, but she is free to respond to the gif ting
of God in whatever way these gifts may lead. Furthermore she is responsible to exercise these gifts to the
fullest for the glory of God and the witness to Christ.
Inductionists draw a common theme from the New
Testament record: under Christ, every person, male
and female, should have the opportunity to develop
and use whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given.

Inductionists note the close parallel between Christians' response to slavery and their response to the role
of women. Passages that call for the submission of
women to men parallel passages that call for the
submission of slaves to masters. What has happened in
the case of slave/master is seen as a type of what is
happening in the case of female/male. Their combination in Galatians
3:28,
together with the Greek/Jew
relationship is seen as the most significant insight the
New Testament provides. It is evident that Paul fully
realized the meaning of the Greek/Jew situation (Galatians 2:11-14), although its outworking caused much
concern in the early church. In relation to slavery or to
women's submission inductionists see Paul as still at the
stage of his times in terms of everyday practical advice
designed to avert criticism and persecution of Christians. But what he taught by inspiration leads inevitably
in God's providence beyond that situation to the full
realization that all men and women are made in God's
image, that in Christ all men and women are called to
be mutually submissive and mutually supportive in the regardless of whether these questions are relevant to the
exercise of their gifts, and that there cannot be an purpose of the biblical revelation or not; that the
ordained and inflexible hierarchy into which all men universe came into being some 10,000 years or less ago,
and women must fit.

Summary

We have examined four quite different areas of
interpretation concerning which conservative evangelical Christians have in recent years been in wide
disagreement. This disagreement can be traced in large
measure to the choice of an approach to biblical
exegesis, whether one of a deductive or an inductive
nature. Once strong commitment has been made to one
or the other of these two types of approach, a wide
divergence in conclusions and commitment is inevitable. Authentic understanding of the biblical message
can be obtained only from a combination of deductive
and inductive insights.

Traditional conservative Christianity has often been
based heavily on a deductive approach to Scripture. In
this sense such Christianity has followed the pattern of
science before Galileo and Newton. It has emphasized
specific passages in the Bible, assumed to give a clear
and easily understood teaching on the matter; all other
descriptions and events, whether biblical or extra
biblical, must then be interpreted to fit the deductions
made from the selected passages.

Recognizing the essential role of induction in the
development of modern science, Christian scientists in
particular are sensitive to the need for an inductive
component to the approach to biblical interpretation.
While recognizing the value of the specific selected
passages of the deductionists, inductionists seek to fit
these passages into the total context of descriptions and
events with which they deal in order that the overall
meaning of the selected passages may be understood in
a totally biblical context.

These differences come to light in the examples we
have considered. Is the meaning of the biblical inter
pretation to be gained by the passages that teach on
biblical inspiration and "inerrarncy" regardless of the
kind of book the Bible actually is-or is the meaning
and scope of the teaching passages on inspiration
enlightened by seeing what kind of book the Bible
actually is? Or again, is the question of the role of
women in the church settled by the passages that
directly teach on women's roles in specific New Testament churches-or is this teaching understood only
when we take a close look at the total experience of
women in the New Testament?

A simple deductive approach leads inevitably to the
conclusion that the Bible is a supernaturally perfect
book that conveys correct answers to all questions and that all the answers suitable for a scientific descrip
tion of origins are contained in the Genesis record; that
slavery is a God-approved institution mirroring for our
edification great truths of the Christian faith; and that women are ordained by God's will to be hierarchically
subject to men in church and family.

Christians who see the necessity for induction as well
as deduction regard these conclusions as inadequate
and as failing to convey the true nature of the biblical
revelation. They see instead that the Bible is a divinely
inspired book designed to convey God's revelation
according to His purpose, but one that will lead to
confusion and apparent error if answers are demanded
to questions inconsistent with that purpose; that
demanding a choice between creation and evolution is
an inappropriate procedure, since all Christians must
believe in God as Creator and Redeemer of His people,
and may or may not believe in the mechanisms of
evolution according to their current understanding of
scientific insight; that slavery is an institution rooted in
the fallenness of human nature that has existed for
many years, and, like other existing social structures,
can be used to illustrate divine truths, but is contrary in
its essence to the biblical doctrines of both creation and
redemption; and that women's subjection to men also
has its root in the fallenness of human nature but by the
grace of God can and must be overcome in and through
Jesus Christ.

The choice of a deductive versus an inductive
approach (or better yet an integrated inductive/deductive approach) occurs at such a primary stage of biblical
interpretation that it is almost reduced to an elementary faith choice. No inductionist can convince a
deductionist that his/her way is faulty by direct argument, any more than a deductionist can accomplish the
same ends with an inductionist. Nothing less than a
change of paradigm is required; nothing less than a
kind of "conversion experience" is adequate. And in
such cases there is not much one can do except witness,
love, and wait for the Holy Spirit.
REFERENCES